Just_A_Guy

Some cool new designs for wind turbines are in the works.

Mea culpa. But the point is the same: it wouldn't look very good for us, in this day and age, if every Church member who lied to their ecclesiastical leader died on the spot.

Reading the NT story, consider--how did the early church (and even non-members) react to the sudden and mysterious death of two apostates? Now consider how the current church--and especially nonmembers--would react to the sudden and mysterious death of apostates. The ancients were more willing to chalk this kind of thing up to divine power. We're much more skeptical today--"divine retribution" isn't much of an alibi.

But a close reading of the article doesn't explain why Panetta cancelled the program--it just has hints and innuendo dropped by Senator Feinstein. Google the woman. She's not exactly a reliable arbiter of what is and isn't "ethical".

I'm not offended, Mahone. I was just trying to make a joke out of a rather awkward situation. I did notice your mention of defendants who are not old enough to be named in the media. This is, as far as I know, not a statutory requirement or a court procedure; it's just a professional convention by journalists.

Can I just say how weird it is to have a discussion board debating whether I'm more likely to be a pedophile than Michael Freakin' Jackson? Where did I go wrong?

I wonder if part of the reason isn't because, as Americans, we tend to read American-produced war accounts; which will demonstrate a preference for American sources; and American involvement in WW2 was four times as long as American involvement in WW1?

Joseph's marriages behind Emma's back aren't necessarily in contravention of what Foreverafter is saying. D&C 132:64-65 exempts the one who holds the keys of the sealing power (i.e. the President of the Church) from the Law of Sarah (the provision that gives the first wife veto over the husband's decision to take subsequent wives). My recollection, however, is that Foreverafter and I disagree as to the substance of the Law of Sarah. Personally--and I can't back this up with any sources at present--I have a lot of sympathy for Foreverafter's hints that many in the Church were not living the law of plural marriage properly and that this was, to some degree, a factor in the law's suspension. I've read accounts of how some husbands treated polygamous wives--and, more commonly, how polygamous wives treated each other--that would curdle your blood. I wouldn't be surprised if President Woodruff's explanation were indeed the primary factor in the decision--but I also wouldn't be surprised to hear that OD-1 contains a certain amount of spin. Here you've got a decision that had the potential to--and, in a small way, did--split the Church; but President Woodruff couches the decision in such a manner as to unite the Church in resentment about the big, bad government that's forcing this policy upon them. Maybe someday we'll get a chance to ask him ourselves. I suppose I could also sympathize with Foreverafter's argument that the first wife always takes pre-eminence; at least theologically. But from a practical standpoint, I think that any polygamist who openly favors one of his wives--even the first one--is just begging for trouble.

See here, which draws largely on Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. I don't always agree with Compton's conclusions, but his research and his use of primary sources are top-notch.

I agree with Bytebear. It's really very simple: if you start doing something on a Sunday, and you lose the Spirit--quit doing it.

Getting a judgment and collecting on it are two different things--as the Goldman family has learned to their cost. As to Jackson specifically, I don't know--I haven't paid much attention to the charges against him (though I want to go on record as saying that I've never been (repeatedly) accused of child molestation, so I'd say there's slightly more reason to suspect Jackson than me). My point is just that it would be pretty silly to--for example--let an accused child molester babysit your kids just because "he's innocent until proven guilty!". This idea that trials can retroactively alter reality baffles me, and it seems to be fairly common. As for publicizing trials: I think the benefits outweigh the costs. For one thing, as a citizen I like to know what the state's prosecutors are up to--the whole idea of people being tried in secret on a routine basis kind of unnerves me. For another, at least on a local level people do often have a legitimate need to know. I want to know if the guy who is about to do my brain surgery has a DUI, or if the escrow agent on my home purchase has been accused of embezzling money, or if my next store neighbor has a pending sex offense case. Though I agree with you that when such charges become a national media circus, it's generally to no one's advantage.

Just because the law makes polygamy legal, doesn't mean God will make it legal. I have a pet theory that polygamy was rescinded as much because the Church was showing it couldn't handle the principle, as it was because of trouble with the US government. As for me: it would be complicated, because I've already had pornography issues during my current marriage. I doubt my wife would trust me to pick a new wife for the right reasons--heck, I wouldn't even trust myself to do it for the right reasons. I've read about polygamous families in the past where the first wife pretty much selected--and even, in a few cases, proposed on behalf of the husband to--the new wife. If my family were compelled to live polygamy, that's probably how we'd go about it. By the way, Carl, I'd be interested to see you break this poll down by gender.

I've always assumed that, as a disembodied spirit, Satan has at minimum the ability to see and hear physical beings. That being the case, I'd say sure--he probably is aware of the content of a verbal prayer. I'd even say he has a limited ability to answer that prayer, if the right people are willing to subject themselves to his will or if the prayer is for some kind of natural phenomena that Satan has limited power to control: In the Book of Mormon, when Ammon is talking to King Lamoni, there's a passing comment about how no one can know the thoughts of our heart save God alone. I'm not sure how far to take this statement; but if one interprets it to say that Satan cannot interpret our thoughts then I agree that it's also logical that Satan shouldn't be able to plant thoughts in our heads. Which would mean that we (and even the authors of some of our scriptures) tend to give him far too much blame for sins that are really a result of our own fallen natures. Which is entirely possible.

I should think so. Ejected from an anger management class? Yeesh.

A trial is no evidence of guilt; but similarly, an acquittal is no evidence of innocence. Courts are not final arbiters of truth. They're just a government mechanism for determining whether we think there's enough evidence to justify incarcerating someone. I've seen plenty of obviously guilty people get off scot-free. Heck, some of my best friends have made a career out of doing it.

By the way: Obama may not be the Messiah, but apparently he's a notch or two above the Pope. (Why yes. Yes, that was a cheap shot. Thanks for asking. )

The only explanations I have seen for this from a trinitarian standpoint are either that a) the conversation is taking place for the benefit of the viewers; b) God "possessed" the body of the man Jesus and periodically left Him, necessitating verbal dialogue (e.g. "My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"); or c) the human element of Jesus was talking to the divine element of Jesus. I'd be interested to hear other (EDIT: trinitarian) explanations, as I find none of the above terribly convincing.

I don't know about Jackson specifically (obviously!); but finding oneself in some state of consciousness after dying will automatically debunk a lot of pretty widespread theories about who we are, where we came from, and where we're going--secularism ("there's nothing after this life") and elements of orthodox Christianity ("we all lose consciousness between death and the resurrection") for a start. People who bought into these theories will be experiencing a pretty big paradigm shift, and will be looking for someone who can explain what is happening to them. I suspect that we Mormons will be one of relatively few (but probably not the only) groups who can present a ready-made theology that will answer those questions.

Annamaureen, to follow up: You talk of fearing that your husband may be "commanded" to take another wife. Well, think about this: what would happen if God gave your family an opportunity to live polygamy (now or in the hereafter), and you decided that it wasn't for you? I mean, consider everything you know about God and all your experiences with Him. If there's anything our doctrine of the premortal Council should teach us it's that God will not force His will upon us. God is not a jerk. Even if you take Brigham Young's comments at face value, Young himself acknowledges--in the same sermon, to boot--that you can get back to God's presence (sounds like Celestial Kingdom to me!) without embracing the doctrine of polygamy; you just may be risking the blessing of eternal increase (i.e. highest level of the CK). At the worst, at some point in your eternal progression your husband might be presented with an opportunity to take another wife; and you and he will counsel together and decide whether you feel the benefits might outweigh the costs. I suspect it'd be more or less like the two of you sitting down and deciding whether your husband should accept a cross-country job offer with a higher salary. And if you reject the opportunity, no skin off your nose--you just stay where you are.

Story here.

I don't think the Russians will ever "behave", at least not in my lifetime. Heck, de Tocqueville foresaw a Russo-American rivalry two hundred years ago. But I'm inclined to agree with you re NATO. Without NATO I suspect Russia would probably swallow up some of the old breakaway Soviet republics--which would be heartbreaking--but I think in the long-term it's in our interests to play a more subdued role on the world stage.

Thoughts on Russia: 1) I doubt Russia would have indulged in that business with Georgia if Georgia had been a NATO member at the time. 2) I doubt Russia would have felt nearly as much urgency to get into that business with Georgia if they hadn't known that, within a few years, Georgia might be a NATO member--thus making military action impossible. 3) My understanding from several maritime forums I frequent is that Russia is trying to re-build its navy. 4) Russia still has a great deal of expansionist sentiment. The rapid growth of NATO after the fall of the Iron Curtain was a dubious policy, IMHO--but the bottom line is that if we're going to stand by our allies in eastern Europe, then we'd better be ready to confront Russia anytime, anywhere. If we're not ready and willing to do that, we should re-think our commitment to NATO and start trying to extricate ourselves from the cat's cradle of defense treaties we've woven over the past few decades. (And that goes for China as well as Russia.)

Oh, OK. Must've misinterpreted you earlier.

Puf, I'm speechless. That concordance is a marvel.

Hi annamaureen-- I would respectfully disagree with your interpretation. If anything, the quotation you provided proves my point--President Young spends the entire preceding paragraph lambasting individuals who were rejecting the principle (not just the practice) out of a hope for future worldly gain generally, and a hope for government offices in particular. Wouldn't be the first time Brother Brigham indulged himself a bit of hyperbole. Personally (speculation coming) I don't see any major penalties for personally opting out of polygamy, so long as a) one does so out of a legitimate concern for maintaining existent family relationships, and b) one remains open to the idea that, at least in some cases, God does sanction the practice and that it wasn't just concocted by a group of horny old men.